Skip Navigation
 
This table is used for column layout.
 
PZC Minutes 07-10-2012
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION    TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING / REGULAR MEETING        COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM

(Please call the Planning Department, 644-2511, ext. 253 if you will be absent)

MEMBERS PRESENT: Patrick Kennedy, Bart Pacekonis, William Carroll, Elizabeth Kuehnel, Kevin Foley, Mario Marrero
        
STAFF PRESENT:         Michele Lipe, Town Planner; Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer; Lauren Zarambo, Recording Secretary

APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
1. Appl. 12-34P, Connecticut Studios, LLC request to amend the zoning regulations to reduce the minimum lot size in the I-291 Corridor Development Zone to 3 acres when the lot is part of a Consolidated Parcel
2. Appl. 12-35P, Ticket Network Site Plan – request for a site plan modification to pave and add lighting to the gravel parking lot previously constructed for 70 vehicles, on property located at 83 Gerber Road, I zone

Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Vice Chairman Pacekonis read the Legal Notice into the record.

PUBLIC HEARING / COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1.  Appl. 12-30P, K. F. Properties LLC - request for renewal of a two-year temporary and conditional permit for the Kebalo Electric Company office located at 175 Wheeler Rd, A-20 zone

The applicant was not in attendance and application was postponed until the July 24 meeting.

2.  Appl. 12-29P, Robert Urso – proposed zoning text amendment to create Section 4.6 Route 5 Travel Services Zone (TS) and add 4.6.1 Purpose, 4.6.2 Prohibited Uses and 4.6.3 Specific Design Standards & Use Restrictions/Guidelines; to modify Article 1 Introduction/Districts Section 1.1 to add “TS”; to modify Article 2 General Requirements Section 2.11.D; to modify Article 4 Commercial and Industrial Zones Table 4.1.1A Permitted Commercial and Industrial Uses to “TS” uses; to modify Table 4.1.61A Commercial and Industrial Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements to add “TS” bulk requirements; to modify Article 6 Site Development Regulations Section 6.1.1 Applicability; 6.2 Landscape and Buffers; Section 6.5 Signs and to modify Article 10 Definitions to add definition of “Motor vehicle refueling/re-energizing station”

Mr. Peter DeMallie, president of Design Professionals, presented the application stating he had previously met informally with the PZC and Town Staff in April and May of this year to develop uses, dimensional standards and guidelines for the proposed Travel Services zone and created a draft of the proposed text amendment. Mr. DeMallie summarized the draft that had been previously distributed to the Commissioners. The permitted uses to be allowed in the proposed Route 5 ‘TS’ Zone are motor vehicle refueling/recharging stations (without repair of vehicles), convenience stores and restaurants (including fast food), pharmacies, retail establishments with high turn over, hotels/motels, financial services and offices (professional, commercial, corporate and business). Minimum site size is two acres (though smaller parcels may be consolidated to create the minimum of two acres); Minimum frontage is 150’; Minimum lot depth is 150’; Front yard minimum of 50’; Rear yard 25’; Side yard 10’; Maximum three stories high with a maximum building height of 45’; Impervious coverage 65% and maximum lot coverage with buildings 30%.

The purpose is to create high quality commercial development areas along Route 5 oriented toward conveniently serving the motoring public, surrounding neighborhood and local work force. Mr. DeMallie stated multiple travel oriented land uses with coordinated design using exemplary building and site aesthetics could serve as a catalyst for further economic development and increase South Windsor’s tax base. Site Plan approval would be required. Prohibited uses include vehicular repair, sales or leasing. Specific design standards were mentioned for exemplary architectural and site design with an emphasis on traffic flow, motor and pedestrian safety and convenience. Outdoor displays of merchandise are to be subject to Commission approval. Overnight storage of vehicles is not allowed. Multiple use buildings and shared parking facilities are encouraged and shared access driveways required. Drive-thru elements must be integrated into building design with adequate queuing capacity. Standards for canopies for drive-thru services and gas stations, access management, cohesive signage, site maintenance, site plan approved screening for mechanical elements and dumpsters were mentioned. Commissioners will be able to reduce dimensional requirements according to standards if warranted for consolidated parcels. Development can take place only at Route 5 intersections.

Town Planner Michele Lipe provided a marked up copy of the proposed regulation with some minor changes and clarifying language as well as five maps of intersections along the Route 5 corridor to the Commissioners and gave staff comments.

1)    Request for amendment to add Section 4.6 to the zoning regulations to create a new zoning classification, the Route 5 Travel Service Zone, to allow for commercial development oriented towards serving the motoring public and adjacent neighborhoods.  
2)   The proposed regulation would establish lot size, setback, permitted and prohibited uses; specific design criteria for the sites and add definitions as appropriate. The proposed amendment includes references to the new zone throughout the body of the regulations as well, e.g. buffers, signage.
3)   The only properties eligible to be rezoned under this proposal would include those properties at US Route 5 intersections. The railroad extends a significant length of Route 5 along the easterly side adjacent to the highway. Under this draft, the majority of the properties that could possible be rezoned are on the westerly side of Route 5.
4)   Uses allowed in the TS zone include: motor vehicle refueling/re-energizing stations, commercial, professional offices, retail stores, financial institutions and agencies, restaurants including fast food; retail sales, hotels or motels, and other uses deemed appropriate after public hearing. Many of these uses directly service industrial areas around them.
5)   Prohibited uses include: vehicle repairs, automobile/truck related sales or rentals; and overnight storage of vehicles.
6)   Specific design standards and guidelines address outdoor storage and display of products on site.  Staff would recommend that at the time of any site plan approval, that this be clearly shown on any plan and the PZC have a clear understanding of what the display would contain.
7)   Another provision drafted allows canopies for gas stations to be as close as 35 feet to the front property line. As for canopies related to drive-thru service, canopies must be located on the sides or rear of the buildings.  
8)   Traffic impacts from the zone change should be easily handled by Route 5.  There are existing signals at most intersections that would be considered. As corner properties develop, we would expect that most if not all entering and exiting would occur from the side street, not Route 5, in accordance with access management requirements.  Traffic studies will have to be conducted in conjunction with the application as necessary.
9)   The Plan of Conservation and Development proposed land use map shows this area as an “Economic Development Area,” which are characterized by a mix of older and newer commercial/industrial buildings. The plan indicates that, “The most appropriate uses are and will continue to be commercial and industrial uses that are in conformance with the Guiding Principles and Objectives of this plan.”
10)  In recent discussions the PZC had with their consultant, upgrades and changes to Route 5 have been discussed and some potential intersections have discussed to create nodes of business.  This regulation would be a means to start to meet that goal.
11)  CRCOG has reviewed this amendment. The report dated June 21, 2012 was read into the record. CRCOG found no conflict with regional plans and policies or concerns of neighboring towns. Their recommendations included using Smart Growth Guidelines for Sustainable Design and Development (CRCOG/EPA November 2009).
                                
        All applicants would have to return to this Commission to rezone any property to be considered under this zone.  Once the PZC rezones the property, the applicant would have to return to this Commission as well as the IWA/CC for approval of site development plans prior to any construction on the site.

Town Engineer, Jeff Doolittle, had no comments.

No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition.

Commissioner Marrero brought up the 50’ minimum land requirement at the front of a property and its positive impact on green space near the Right of Way. The Commissioner also questioned the draft wording concerning Section 4.6 use of the word ‘intersection’ and suggested interjecting the phrase ‘town road’ to differentiate from private roads or drives. Planner Lipe suggested using the phrase ‘public streets’. Commissioner Foley asked if the proposed zone’s development was to be at signalized intersections. Planner Lipe replied it had not been identified to be at signaled intersections only. The Commissioner then asked if there was anything in the regulation about the proximity of fueling stations to wetlands. Planner Lipe replied there was nothing specifically but if there was a brook or wetlands on the property it would be subject to IWA/CC review. Commissioner Carroll also supported development to be at signalized intersections only. Mr. DeMallie concurred. Vice Chairman Pacekonis brought up the possibility of traffic backup concerns from electric re-charging stations. Mr. DeMallie commented if a re-energizing station is proposed someone familiar with the technology will address the issue. The Vice Chairman also asked about Planner Lipe’s concerns regarding queuing issues at drive-thru windows. Planner Lipe made a distinction between drive thru canopies and gas station canopies proximity to front property lines. She stated canopies for gas stations being 35’ allowed where as canopies for drive thru servicing would not face Route 5 and be located on the side or rear of buildings.

Chairman Kennedy closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.

3.  Appl. 12-28P, Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC - request for a resubdivision to create 6 industrial lots and a Special Exception to Section 3.4 and Site Plan of Development for approval of a 155 unit multi-family development, to be known as “Nutmeg Village”, on the remaining 49.5 acres, for properties identified as R003 Nutmeg Road, L023 Pleasant Valley Road, 388 Pleasant Valley Road and a portion of 438 Pleasant Valley Road, located on the northerly side of Pleasant Valley Road, southerly side of South Satellite Road and easterly of Nutmeg Road South, I, MF-AA and A-20 zones

Mr. Peter DeMallie, president of Design Professionals, representing Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC, introduced Mr. Bob Urso, Attorney Ralph Alexander representing Mr. Urso, Mr. Andrew Krar, civil and traffic engineer for Design Professionals acting as Project Manager, Mr. Benjamin Wheeler, registered landscape architect with Design Professionals working as the Land Planner for the application and David Holmes, principal of Capital Studio Architects of East Hartford. As the meeting began Mr. DeMallie distributed a letter signed by Frank and Jeannine LaCapra of 442 Pleasant Valley Road and Robert Urso for Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC (Exhibit A) and another letter addressed to the Town Planner Michele Lipe regarding the Emergency Vehicle Access Driveway location (Exhibit B) with an accompanying map (Exhibit C). Mr. DeMallie stated ‘they have worked out the emergency vehicle access location off South Satellite Road to the satisfaction of the industrial parties who participated in the last round’.

This development includes six industrial lots and a residential development called ‘Nutmeg Village’ on a 61 acre tract comprised of the Egleston property, the Shepard property and the Greenberg property. The two applicants are Horseshoe Lane Associates LLC in respect to the proposed Nutmeg Village and M.G. Realty, Mr. Arnold Greenberg, owner. The Resubdivision application is for the six industrial lots ranging in size from 1.4 acres minimum to 3.5 acres maximum. The second application is for Special Exception and Site Plan approval for a 155 dwelling unit, Nutmeg Village Residential Community.

On February 14, 2012 the PZC approved the zone change to a multifamily AA zone and general plan of development. Since then, they have been before the State Traffic Commission going through an administrative review process which was approved on April 16, 2012. A modified state traffic commission certificate was issued. The local traffic authority concurred with the STC that there are no requirements for offsite improvements with respect to traffic or drainage associated with this project. Required mylars have been filed with the Town Clerk.

A map of the entire development was displayed. Of the 155 dwelling units there are fifteen single family units, twelve duplex units and 128 townhouse style units on private streets with sidewalks on one side of those streets. There will be a bus shelter and a central dedicated mail pick up area. The single access point for Nutmeg Village is via Pleasant Valley Road. The PZC required on the recommendation of the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief that a secondary means of emergency ingress and egress be added. The plan for this emergency vehicle access driveway has been changed at the request of the abutting industrial neighbors. An Emergency Vehicle Access Driveway letter (Exhibit B) was read and the change of access was shown on an accompanying map (Exhibit C). The change will be formally presented at a PZC public hearing. Mr. DeMallie clarified the driveway would only be accessible to emergency personnel and would not be used by the general public as a thorough fare.

Nutmeg Village is proposed as a planned unit development with common interest ownership. All land will be maintained by the Association. Every residence will come with a ‘fee simple parcel’ of land beneath the unit with some land behind for deck or patio. Fee simple ownership is being encouraged to benefit financing in today’s lending market. Open space and common areas such as the Club House will be owned by the Association. All single family homes and duplexes will have basements. Townhouses will have an at-grade basement and garage combination.

Phasing was described. The Club House will be constructed before 50% of the units have been completed and ready for sale. A watercourse runs through the property and a prefabricated concrete arch design bridge will be built during the first phase as well as constructing and stabilizing the detention basins on the site. Work will be done on a pond area in the southeasterly corner of the property in later phases. Timing of the project is approximately 2012 – 2016.

On June 11, 2012 a meeting was held at the library with the Hilton Drive abutters to discuss their ongoing drainage issues. In respect to storm drainage design the proposed development should improve some of Hilton Drive’s preexisting drainage issues.

The easterly portion of the Egleston lot is to be used as the entrance drive and to the west the existing Egleston house will be on a 30,000 sq ft conforming parcel with 100’ of frontage to be approved as part of this application. It will remain in the industrial zone. Mr. DeMallie made a recommendation to the Commission to consider placing the house and those houses directly across the street in an A20 zone.

The pond in the southeasterly corner is partially on the property of Frank and Jeannine LaCapra, 442 Pleasant Valley Road. A letter (Exhibit A) was read into the record. The letter, signed by the LaCapras and Mr. Urso, gives permission to enter the rear of their property to dredge the pond and brook areas on Pleasant Valley Road to remove silt at a later phase in the project at no cost to the LaCapras.

Concerning the industrial lots, CLP has upgraded the utilities on the six lots which front on Satellite Road. Final grading will be site specific. Sidewalks are indicated on the plans but are being deferred until each individual site is developed and will become responsibility of the individual. There is a 75’ buffer between the industrial and residential developments. A chain link fence will be installed across the entire length of the back of the industrial lots to discourage pedestrian access between the two developments. The six lots can be consolidated. The industrial lot owners will have some restricted covenants in respect to their abutting residential neighbors. Industrial adjacent residential noise restrictions apply. The residential community will be apprised of the abutting industrial uses in the zone.

Mr. DeMallie stated the Special Exception review criteria from Section 8.4, Items 1-12, is essentially the same in scope as the Zone Change review criteria from Section 8.3, Items 1-14.  He indicated the Commission has agreed that criteria has been met. There are two Special Exception review criteria which differ: 13) The overall physical appearance is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the neighborhood and corridor. The landscape and architectural design has been endorsed by ADRC. Buffers and setbacks are compatible with the adjoining development more so than a strictly industrial development; 14) The architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and blends well into the surrounding area. The traditional landscape and architectural design are pleasing and harmonious with the environment to meet that requirement.

Professional Engineer for Design Professionals, Andy Krar, mentioned his site development plans, traffic impact report and gave a synopsis of the storm drainage report for the project. The storm drainage system he designed, a conventional subsurface storm sewer collection system, consists of catch basins, manholes, underground culverts, plastic pipe, RCP pipe, detention ponds and rain gardens. Mr. Krar described their four goals for the system: 1) To reduce the peak discharge and run off to adjacent property owners; 2) To reduce the peak rate of discharge flowing into the drainage ditch. Detention ponds are employed to attenuate the condition of 14 acres of the property discharging into one drainage ditch; 3) To maintain the hydraulic integrity of the wetlands within the site by the discharge of roofs into the wetlands and two rain gardens which discharge into the wetlands. 4) To responsibly treat storm runoff from developed portions of the property before its ultimate discharge into the surrounding environment with the use of two rain gardens, three storm-ceptor water quality units, rip rap aprons, wet detention ponds, the pond restoration project previously mentioned and stream bank stabilization. Mr. Krar showed where the under-drain is located on the map. The 8” perforated under-drain is 5’ - 8’ below the ground receiving the basement footer drains and ultimately will discharge into the detention pond.

Public utilities include underground water provided by MDC, underground electric provided by Northeast Utilities, natural gas and a sanitary sewer employing a gravity system which will flow into a pump station located north of the proposed bridge pumping sewer up to Pleasant Valley Road. All but the first three residential units off Pleasant Valley Road will have sanitary sewers at least two feet below the basement floor. The three buildings off Pleasant Valley Road will have sub-pumps.

Approximately 14,500 cubic yards of fill will be imported to the site to be used as a sub-base for the roadway, gravel fill for sidewalks and structural fill for buildings. No fill will be required for the roadway system. 12,000 cubic yards of top soil and forest litter will be removed from the site.

Ben Wheeler, CT registered landscape architect and Director of Operations for Design Professionals, mentioned landscaping elements of two recreation areas and a stone dust path circling the site. The concern about the circular drive of three duplex buildings on Shepard Way accommodating trash truck turning radiuses was readdressed and they are of the opinion no issues exists for the trucks negotiating the turns.  
The applicant is requesting a street tree waiver for the industrial lots on South Satellite Road so as not to cut down existing trees to put up new ones and has questioned the logic of planting trees next to utility lines with the recent history of storms impacting utility lines at the end of an industrial road and cul de sac street.

Signage on Pleasant Valley Road includes a four foot high two sided ground mounted sign made of stone or brick on the median in the entrance drive. It will have six foot high stone or brick piers on each end of the sign as shown on the plans with evergreen and deciduous shrubs and perennial plantings. The sign will read ‘Nutmeg Village’ on each side with letters not exceeding 24 sq ft per side meeting zoning regulations. There will be two ground mounted lights on each side of the entrance sign for illumination.

Street lighting is proposed throughout the development including the central mail location and community building parking lot. Lights in the area of the townhouse buildings will be mounted on a 16’ pole and everywhere else on 12’ poles to accommodate the different scale of buildings. Plans have been revised to add two light poles and adjust the position of other lights by request of the town staff because of low light levels on the original plan. Wall mounted lights and ceiling fixtures are in the same design series, ‘Grand  Manor’, as the street lighting by the request of the ADRC.

To fill the buffer planting requirements the existing mature vegetation in the southwest corner of the site and the north central portion of the multifamily development will be left in place. The Pleasant Valley Road entrance on the western boundary of the multifamily lots will be planted with a double row of white pines for the buffer requirement at the Egleston house lot. The buffer requirement for the eastern boundary will be located on the adjacent property under the control of a 25’ buffer easement. The draft easement has been submitted to town staff and town attorney for their review. The white pine trees on the adjacent lot are not within the 25’ buffer easement and as a result another row of white pines will be planted to be under the control of the Association. This detail was pointed out by Planner Lipe and the plans will be revised to include this detail. In the northwest corner a row of white pines will be planted to mix in with existing evergreen and deciduous trees. Along the first industrial and half the second industrial lot no buffer is proposed as the area contains early stages of a woods forming. There is a double row of evergreen trees proposed between lots two and three of the industrial and the residential lots where the residential is closest to the industrial lots. There will be a 50’ buffer between the rest of the industrial and residential lots. The buffer on the industrial lots will remain in place until each lot is developed. At that time each lot will submit a buffer plan for approval to the Commission. The developers are recommending any trees in good condition, 6” or larger, will remain in place. The buffer for the east end of the industrial lots will have a double row of broadleaf evergreen shrubs to work with the canopy of adjacent mature woods. The buffer at the eastern boundary along the Hilton Drive lots will include all trees 6” and larger in good condition to remain in place with a double row of white pine trees to be planted except for within the wetlands area. The town staff has required that after the site is cleared and before the buffer plantings are installed the developer must have approval of town staff and landscape architect prior to planting any buffer plantings. The disturbed areas will be reseeded with a lawn mix. The perimeters of the detention basins will be seeded with a mix to stabilize the slopes and provide wildlife value. Areas that are 10’ outside the stone dust paths or more than 80’ behind any units will be planted with a native pasture style seed mix to be mowed once a year. The entire area except for flower beds around each unit will be maintained by the Association through a maintenance contract with a landscaping contractor.

Street trees are proposed along Pepin Place, the main road from Pleasant Valley, and will extend to the brook crossing. Streets trees are proposed along Shepard Way. There are no street trees proposed in the area where the townhome development is located but rather each building will have two large shade trees at either end. The six unit townhome building will have two smaller ornamental flowering trees in front. The three cul de sac streets will have a landscaped island in the middle to be seeded with lawn and three flowering trees. Upon ADRC request the middle two driveways of the six unit buildings will have a 2.5’ planting strip of ornamental grass and flowering perennials. The community building will be landscaped with flowering deciduous trees at the four corners. Evergreen, deciduous and flowering ornamental trees are to be spread throughout the development concentrated where buildings are back to back or the side of a building abuts a back of a building for screening.

Mr. DeMallie asked that the hearing remain open until the application is passed through IWA/CC.

Mr. David Holmes, a principal at Capital City Architects of East Hartford, presented a sample board of materials, which had been prepared for ADRC, to be used for the town house units. A black roof shingle color was selected with two siding materials, faux clapboard siding and faux asphalt cedar impression shakes, in two basic earth toned color schemes. All trim will be in white. These choices were positively met by the ADRC. Decks will be cantilevered from the floor system to avoid two story posts. Single basement garages can be modified into tandem garages if elected.

Town Planner Michele Lipe gave staff comments.

1.  Request for request for a resubdivision to create 6 industrial lots on approx. 11 acres and a Special Exception to Section 3.4 and Site Plan of Development for approval of a 155 unit multi-family development, to be known as “Nutmeg Village”, on the remaining 49.5 acres, located on the northerly side of Pleasant Valley Road, southerly side of South Satellite Road and easterly of Nutmeg Road South, I, MF-AA and A-20 zones

2.  The zone change/general plan of development for the multi-family development was approved on 2/14/12. Two specific concerns mentioned at that time included: Potential effect on drainage on nearby properties must be addressed and Emergency access from the development shall be provided on the site plan. This site plan appears to conform to the approved general plan.

3.  Special exception review criteria include:
  • The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
  • The application has met the requirements of the zoning regulations.
  • The land is physically suited to the proposed use.
  • Minimal, if any, adverse environmental impacts are created.
  • No traffic or other hazards will be created.
  • The impacts on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage systems, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure will be minimal.
  • There will be minimal or no adverse effects on existing uses in the area.
  • Surrounding property values will be conserved.
  • The character of the neighborhood will be maintained or minimally disrupted.
  • The general welfare of the community will be served.
  • There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs.
  • Historic factors are adequately protected; or due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
  • The overall physical appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the neighborhood/corridor.
  • The architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and blends well into the surrounding area.
The Commission may impose additional conditions in accordance with these regulations in order to ensure that all applicable criteria enumerated above and/or within a particular use category are satisfied.

4. For the multi-family development, the impervious coverage allowed is 60%, 13.5% proposed. The buildable acreage for this site is 35.3 acres. The proposed density is 4.38 units per acre, the allowed density is 4.5 units/acre.

5. The number of parking spaces required is 2 spaces per unit, or 310 spaces. The applicant has provided 2 spaces per unit plus for the duplexes and multi-family units and 4 spaces fro the single family units.  An additional 48 spaces have been included around the development.

6. Multi-family developments are required to provide at least 600 square feet of developed recreation area per unit; 93,000 square feet (or 2.18 ac) of developed recreation area is required for this development. Open space and/or conservation areas are required to conserve sensitive or exceptional features of the site; this requirement is accomplished by the provision of the 2.91 acres of land that has been designated as open space.

7. That area has been provided with two recreation areas, a community clubhouse and a walking trail around the interior of the site.  The trail will be stone dust material.

8. All the roadways will be privately owned.  An emergency exit, as required at the time of the zone change, has been provided out to South Satellite Road.

9. There are significant wetlands areas around the property. The applicant is proposing some work within the wetland areas. The IWA/CC opened the public hearing on this item Wednesday, June 20th and the continuation of that hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, July 11th. The PZC will be required to hold this hearing open to get the wetland decision before closing the hearing.

10.Public water and sewer are available. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.

11.Refuse pick up is proposed to be curbside. If this application is approved, the property owner must execute an agreement permitting the Town to enter the property for purposes of refuse and recycling services; said agreement would also include a hold harmless provision.

12.Sidewalks are proposed along one side of all streets. A bus shelter has been shown at the entrance to the development.

13.The landscaping plan calls for street trees along the primary access road and the applicant has provided typical plans for the different unit types.

14.The landscaping plan has incorporated the buffering between this development and the surrounding residential and industrial areas. Cross sections, showing the buffer growth at 5-years and maturity, as required have been provided. The applicant has provided a copy of a draft easement to be executed for the maintenance of the buffer along the easterly property boundary that is on the adjacent property. It should be noted that much of the existing vegetation falls outside of the buffer easement.  We would request that either additional land be granted in the easement or that additional buffer trees be added to the plans along this boundary.  A note has been placed on the plans indicating that staff and the landscape architect will evaluate after tree clearing has occurred, and during months without vegetation on the trees, to determine if more buffer plantings are required to meet the intent of the buffer.

15.The Architectural and Design Review Board reviewed this on 6/19/12.  The Board concurred that the buffer treatment should be reviewed once construction occurs for its effectiveness and suggested some treatment other than grass be utilized between the separate driveways. Generally, they were satisfied with the proposal as presented. The applicant has addressed both these comments on the revised plans.

16.This request also includes a six lot industrial subdivision with frontage lots along South Satellite Road. Minimum lot size under the Industrial zoning is 30,000 sq ft, with 100 feet of frontage.  The lot sizes in this subdivision range from approx. 1.4 acres to 3.5 acres.

17.Sidewalks have been proposed along the frontage of the subdivision.

18.There is no requirement for open space in an industrial subdivision.  However, there is a buffer required along the residentially zoned property to the south and east.  The required buffer is 50 feet from the property line. The site is currently a treed site with primarily deciduous growth.  The applicant has submitted a buffer-planting plan.  The focuses of the plantings to date are to enhance the existing deciduous trees with under story plantings in the area of the disturbance for the utilities and emergency access drive.  This may require the applicant to selectively cut some of the tree is the buffer to provide for areas for the under story to grow.

19.The applicant is requesting a waiver to Section C.2.c.3 of the subdivision regulations which requires street trees to be installed because of the location of the existing power lines.  

20.Water and sewer are available to the site. Site plan approval is required on all industrial lots prior to use or construction on the lot. WPCA approval will be required at that time.

If approved, the Planning Department has no additional modifications to request.

Town Engineer, Jeff Doolittle gave the following comments:
1.  The sidewalks shown on the plans are presumed to be poured cement concrete and must be labeled as such.
2.  Some units with foundation drains may require check valves and will be looked into.
3.  It will be verified that only buildings shown on the plans with sub pumps are the only buildings that need sub pumps.
4.  A main concern for development on this site is that the site has a high ground water table. This will be double checked to be sure it is not an issue for the units, the road or the utilities.
5.  Sanitary sewer laterals are shown on the plans although some common laterals are shown on some multifamily units. WPCA typically likes to see individual sanitary laterals for all units especially where they are individually owned. This topic will have to be taken up with WPCA.
6.  The pump station will be privately owned and more detail is needed in order to be approved by WPCA. They will require emergency back up power for that pump station.
7. The bridge needs to be more fully designed in order to determine the impact of the bridge on wetlands and surrounding areas. More elevations and dimensions for the bridge are required.
8. Comprehensive storm drainage has been indicated but will be checked to verify there is no negative impact on downstream properties.
9.  The existing pond will be cleaned out but requires a more developed plan to determine any impact that may or may not occur from that activity. There is a small section of the stream downstream of the pond that appears to be stable but needs to checked that it remains stable under construction and afterwards.
10. ‘Option B’ on the emergency access drive plan is shown attaching to the driveway of one of the multifamily units but should connect to the road without attaching to a driveway. It does not indicate whether it will be paved or gravel or with grass atop. The gates at both ends need to be more clearly shown.

No one from the public spoke in favor or opposition.

Commissioner Kuehnel asked about the issue of sidewalks being completed in piecemeal fashion. Mr. DeMallie responded they are not disputing the need for sidewalks but have concern about prematurely putting sidewalks in the industrial areas where elevations and grade changes may change as the sites develop. He recommended the sidewalks on industrial lots be deferred and become a requirement of the future property owners to do as part of their site plan. Vice Chairman Pacekonis inquired about the maximum occupancy of the Clubhouse and if the eight parking spaces indicated on the plans would be adequate. He asked if there will be a place for overflow parking should the need arise for more parking. Mr. Holmes responded the approximate occupant load of the Clubhouse to be 50 – 60 people. Vice Chairman suggested even at ½ occupancy there may be problems with parking and also suggested a bike rack be installed at the Clubhouse. He also asked about the capacity of the bus shelter and if it would be adequate to protect the number of children who may use it in inclement weather. Mr. Wheeler responded the bus shelter is comparable to other developments in town. Vice Chair stated ‘Comparable and adequate are two different things.’ and asked for a better answer at a future date. Mr. Wheeler then stated they “would be happy to accommodate the appropriate capacity for the number of kids that we project in the development.” Vice Chairman continued that many good improvements have been made to the proposed project over the last three years to make it a much better application than the original. He stated he understood the street tree waiver on South Satellite Road and their concerns however he would like to see one of the conditions for approval be a requirement that the sidewalks would be installed on South Satellite Road when the first industrial lot is developed. Mr. DeMallie questioned if they were to install the sidewalks now who would maintain them and that they understood the concern but would like to figure out an appropriate time when the sidewalks should be installed but they would rather defer them. The request, Mr. DeMallie continued, is not a bad one and something to consider but hoped the Commission would be reasonable with respect to the matter.

Commissioner Carroll asked about the phases of utilities, roads and sidewalks for the whole development happening all at once or at each phase. Mr. Wheeler responded they would be developed as each phase goes along and the only thing initially outside the phase areas that will be built first will be the detention basins. The Commissioner asked if the fence along South Satellite Road between the industrial and residential areas will go down to where the emergency road is proposed and will there be a gate where people can travel. Mr. Wheeler explained the fence will be a typical chain link fence gate with a Knox Lock on it to allow emergency personnel access only and the intent of the gate was not to allow pedestrian travel to South Satellite Road or vice versa. Commissioner Carroll asked Mr. Krar about the entrance driveway and the Egleston driveway. Mr. Krar explained the existing driveway will be tied into the proposed entrance driveway at Pepin Place in order to remove one driveway on Pleasant Valley Road that will be close to their entrance. There will be a proposed access easement to allow the owner of the house to use the Pepin Place roadway for accessing their driveway. The Commissioner indicated the state traffic study indicated access to state roads and clarified that Pleasant Valley is a town road and asked if by the reports description was really referring to access to Route 5. Mr. Krar said the state reviewed and endorsed their traffic projection and the way all the intersections were modeled but could not testify whether the State entertained any recommendations for improvements for town roads but the State did not have any concerns with the intersections at State Highway Route 5 and Route 30. Mr. Krar continued that Lt. Bond concurred with what the State’s conclusions were and had no concerns. Mr. DeMallie interjected he had attended the meeting with the State Traffic Commission and the State DOT at which time they were asked to review the site line and traffic volumes at the entrance. Mr. DeMallie stated the State was most concerned with the direction toward Route 5 and that they are to donate 15’ of land to the town to expand the right of way to the North. There will be an unobstructed site line to the West at the entrance driveway. Mr. DeMallie continued the State reviewed the traffic projections for the intersection and concluded no improvements were necessary. The State also looked at drainage and its impact on the Podunk River or downstream areas and concluded from a State perspective what was proposed was adequate. Commissioner Carroll’s final question was to Mr. Holmes whether the building materials proposed were plastic or wood to which Mr. Holmes replied they would be using faux materials made of good quality plastic with the durability of wood shake without the maintenance.

Commissioner Foley asked if detention pond #1 would be fully constructed before any water is discharged. Mr. Krar replied during the construction there would be discharge of ground water which will be pumped into temporary diversion swales and dams during the construction of the pond itself. Commissioner Foley clarified before any stormwater from the streets is discharged into the pond it will be fully constructed and vegetated. Mr. Krar confirmed the first thing that will be done is to build the pond. Commissioner Foley asked if grading would take place right up to the property lines of the Hilton Drive neighbors to eliminate preexisting water problems. Mr. Krar stated they would be staying at least 25’ away from the Hilton Drive properties. There will be no grading but rather planting trees within 25’ of their properties. Mr. Krar continued fairly shallow ground water conditions exist therefore the majority of this project is a fill situation. The roads will be built up above grade with the exception of Shepard Way which will be cut out below grade so as to lower the grade adjacent to the Hilton Drive properties.  Commissioner Foley asked if this allowed the water from Hilton Drive properties to flow downhill. Mr. Krar clarified they are not creating that situation but will not allow any of Nutmeg Village’s property to drain in the direction of Hilton Drive. The Commissioner asked if there was a way to alleviate some of Hilton Drive’s standing water situation. Mr. Krar replied the 8” perforated under drain is being installed for that reason and will help their situation, not necessarily to cure it but to help. Commissioner Foley asked if the fence running behind the industrial lots on South Satellite could be vinyl stockade rather than chain link. Mr. Holmes replied there are concerns about attracting graffiti and the fence proposed is a black pvc coated fence rather than a typical galvanized chain link fence; the color black so as to disappear into the environment.

Commissioner Marrero brought up the lighting on the site stating his concern if there is adequate illumination at Pleasant Valley Road and the main access drive to be seen properly at night. Mr. Holmes stated there is a proposed street light at the bus shelter providing illumination for the entrance drive coming out onto Pleasant Valley Road and believes there are existing cobra style street lights in the general area on Pleasant Valley Road and will verify if it is adequate at the next meeting. Commissioner Marrero asked if ‘Option B’ of the emergency access road is going to be paved. Mr. Holmes responded the intent is to have a gravel base with loam on top to be seeded to look like a lawn but will support the weight of emergency vehicles. The Commissioner stated the stone dust gravel walking trail is shown on the plan to be next to or on the same area. Mr. Holmes stated the Option B is a preliminary sketch which was not engineered, graded or finalized and they will fully engineer that area on the plan before the next meeting. Commissioner Marrero then asked how are tiger beetles and sedge were going to be mitigated given they are going before the IWA/CC. Mr. Holmes replied they have an environmental consultant as part of their team working with DEEP on both items.

Town Planner Lipe suggested the phasing requirements of the emergency access road be addressed stating the Chief of Police did not want that access to be one of the last things done on the project. She asked for consideration of when it could be done suggesting 50% or even if it is at least roughed in and could the subject be discussed at a continued meeting when they’ve had a chance to review it. Mr. Holmes replied they would discuss it. Vice Chairman Pacekonis asked about the maintenance of the emergency access and whether it will be plowed in the winter. Mr. DeMallie stated it will have to be maintained and part of the maintenance contract for snow removal as well as restricting vegetative growth.

Chairman Kennedy stated the IWA/CC has not acted on the application therefore by statute PZC cannot act.   Vice Chairman Pacekonis made a motion to continue the public hearing to the 7/24/12 meeting. Commissioner Kuehnel seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

REGULAR MEETING / COUNCIL CHAMBERS

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Kennedy called the regular meeting to order at 8:55 p.m.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

NEW BUSINESS: Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:

  • Appl. 12-29P, Robert Urso – proposed zoning text amendment to create Section 4.6 Route 5 Travel Services Zone (TS) and add 4.6.1 Purpose, 4.6.2 Prohibited Uses and 4.6.3 Specific Design Standards & Use Restrictions/Guidelines; to modify Article 1 Introduction/Districts Section 1.1 to add “TS”; to modify Article 2 General Requirements Section 2.11.D; to modify Article 4 Commercial and Industrial Zones Table 4.1.1A Permitted Commercial and Industrial Uses to “TS” uses; to modify Table 4.1.61A Commercial and Industrial Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements to add “TS” bulk requirements; to modify Article 6 Site Development Regulations Section 6.1.1 Applicability; 6.2 Landscape and Buffers; Section 6.5 Signs and to modify Article 10 Definitions to add definition of “Motor vehicle refueling/re-energizing station”
Town Planner Lipe confirmed that the Commission wanted to add two considerations ‘public streets’ and ‘signalized intersections’ to the wording of the last line of the purpose.

Commissioner Kuehnel made a motion to approve the proposed regulations as revised by staff with the proviso that the Commission finds it in conformance with the Town Plan of Development with an effective date of 7/21/12. Commissioner Marrero seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

BONDS:

MINUTES:   6-26-12 was distributed for review.

OLD BUSINESS:   see page 3

OTHER BUSINESS:  

CORRESPONDENCE/REPORTS:

ADJOURNMENT:

Vice Chairman Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Commissioner Kuehnel seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  The meeting ended at 9:55 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lauren L Zarambo
Recording Secretary